HAVANA - In late April, with an abundance of triumphant propaganda, the
government announced to the Cubans living on the island that this sugarcane
harvest (which has not yet ended as of today) will achieve the set goal of
producing 3.6 million tons of sugar.

According to the state's report, this success is due essentially to the fact
that work was performed on the basis of correct strategies and decisions,
together with implementation of new methods of payment, improvements in
labor organization and an adequate system of workers' emulation. It also was
stated that the result shows a sure step in the state endeavor for the
recovery of the sugarcane industry and the progressive increase of the sugar
volumes to be produced.

However, there are many other coherent sets of criteria that would focus
this matter from quite different points of view if handled outside the
state-imposed censorship. For experts in such matters there is nothing
relevant in producing 400 thousand tons of sugar above last year's harvest,
when it really means that it barely approaches the levels achieved here in
the decade of the 1920's. What's more, it exploits only 30 percent of the
existing agricultural and industrial potential.

It is true that the main industrial efficiency indicators have improved,
including the important base 96 sugar-to-cane efficiency ratio, but nobody
doubts that the levels recorded are related to a favorable combination of
drought and cold weather during the harvest months. These were
climatological conditions that increased the sugar concentration in the cane
and helped the entire agricultural and industrial processes.

Facing this tangible reality it seems erroneous to talk about resounding
successes, because the same (unusually intense) drought that has helped
today's results is also already affecting the planting activity for the
future.

A poll conducted in sugarcane production units in different localities
reveals marked delays in the planting, which compromises the raw material
for next year's harvest - in particular the planting of springtime seed,
about due to start up.

This situation is already jeopardizing the agricultural efficiency of next
year's harvest. There also is a scarcity of seed. This fact together with
the very bad quality of available seed puts in serious danger the achieving
of the planting schedule. That schedule is an indispensable prerequisite to
guarantee the continuity of the recovery that the sugar sector needs.

In practical terms, therefore, the production report of this sector is
not very encouraging. And the same thing happens with the economic
appraisals published (by the state), in spite of the fact that the cost of
producing a ton of crude sugar decreased.

Hanging over the results of this harvest is something ominous enough - the
depression affecting prices in the world sugar market. At around
4.5 cents of a dollar per pound, prices at the close of April reduced by
about US$100 million the value of the 3.6 million tons produced.

Because of these objective obstacles and others of a subjective
character, we can see a lot of propaganda and a lot of triumphant
posing. But what is nowhere to be seen is the benefit that in real terms
the population would receive if it were true that the sugar production is
going to grow.